--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-07 08:43
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > My mistake. gcc.dg/pr39794.c failed with -m64 on Linux/x86-64, not
> > on Linux/ia32. The testcase in comment #7 started to fail between
> > revision 161671
--- Comment #11 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-07 04:53
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> My mistake. gcc.dg/pr39794.c failed with -m64 on Linux/x86-64, not
> on Linux/ia32. The testcase in comment #7 started to fail between
> revision 161671 and 161840. I am doing a binary s
--- Comment #10 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-07 03:22
---
My mistake. gcc.dg/pr39794.c failed with -m64 on Linux/x86-64, not
on Linux/ia32. The testcase in comment #7 started to fail between
revision 161671 and 161840. I am doing a binary search. It may be
the real cause.
--- Comment #9 from sandra at codesourcery dot com 2010-07-07 01:09 ---
Yes, this is on an Ubuntu system, but one of my co-workers says GCC multilibs
work with Ubuntu now; the support is in gcc/config/i386/t-linux64. Me, I'm
clueless about anything configury-related. :-( I can try aga
--- Comment #8 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-07 00:48 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Hmmm. It's possible I built my toolchain incorrectly, but I'm seeing that it
> aborts when compiled with -m64 but not with -m32. The failure mode looks
> identical to that reported in PR3
--- Comment #7 from sandra at codesourcery dot com 2010-07-07 00:42 ---
Hmmm. It's possible I built my toolchain incorrectly, but I'm seeing that it
aborts when compiled with -m64 but not with -m32. The failure mode looks
identical to that reported in PR39794:
(gdb) print a
$1 = {0, 1
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 21:40 ---
Confirmed. Fails with -m32 testing on x86_64.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-06 21:24 ---
Looking closely at my results, this test will only fail with
"-m32 -O2 -funroll-loops" on Linux/x86-64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44838
--- Comment #4 from sandra at codesourcery dot com 2010-07-06 21:10 ---
Well, I'm *trying* to investigate but I haven't been able to reproduce the
problem yet. I checked out r161844 and built for i686-pc-linux-gnu, and the
gcc.dg/pr39794.c execution test passes. If this requires s
--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 16:58 ---
Caused by, or exposed by ... in both cases your responsibility to investigate.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44838
--- Comment #2 from sandra at codesourcery dot com 2010-07-06 15:57 ---
s/caused by/exposed by/ ?
The patch to ivopts likely results in it selecting a different/smaller set of
loop induction variables, but I don't see how this change by itself could have
introduced a wrong-code error.
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-06 15:21 ---
It is caused by revision 161844:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg00198.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
12 matches
Mail list logo
